Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The tight race for US president has mainly been dominated by the theme of change. The battle for the White House has now become a squabble between the two candidates for who will have the means and capacity to truly change the face of America.

Indeed, having a black candidate for the first time in US history might signal that American society is changing.

Of course, to change means divorcing the US from 8 years of abhorrent policies of the Bush administration. The Republican front-runner, John McCain, has sought to distance himself from the Bush/neocon era, but where exactly will McCain deliver such change?

Certainly not on Middle East peace it seems.

The current Republican administration has - in-line with neocon policy - discouraged Israeli peace talks with Syria, and shown little interest in peace with the Palestinians. Instead, it has supported Israel's hawkish policies of occupation in the Palestinian Territories and war with Lebanon.

And according to McCain's advisers, Max Boot and Richard Williamson, any future Republican administration he heads will continue Bush's neocon policies in the Middle East and "discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks and refrain from actively engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process".

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has reported in the article below Boot and Williamson's remarks at the hawkish think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Jim Lobe, blogger on US foreign policy, believes McCain's adoption of a hawkish perception in the Middle East maybe a result of the increasing influence of leading neocon, Elliott Abrams. Speculation is mounting that McCain will appoint Abrams as foreign policy adviser should he succeed in the November race. Abrams currently serves the Bush administration in a similar capacity.

So, again, where is the change McCain-Palin keep on promising the world?

That was the message delivered over the weekend by two McCain advisers -- Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Richard Williamson, the Bush administration's special envoy to Sudan -- during a retreat hosted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy at the Lansdowne Resort in rural Virginia.

One of Barack Obama's representatives -- Richard Danzig, a Clinton administration Navy secretary -- said the Democratic presidential candidate would take the opposite approach on both issues.

In an interview with the Atlantic magazine over the summer, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) insisted that in his presidency he would serve as the chief negotiator in the peace process. But at the retreat, Boot said pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian deal would not be a top priority in a McCain administration, adding that as many as 30 crises across the globe require more urgent attention.

Boot called the Bush administration’s renewed efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian talks a mistake. He also cast Israel's talks with Syria as betraying the stake that the United States has invested in Lebanon's fragile democracy.

"John McCain is not going to betray the lawfully elected government of Lebanon," Boot said.

Williamson was slightly more nuanced in addressing the issue of how the message would be sent.

"Israel should not be dictated to in dealing with Syria or dealing with Lebanon," he said, addressing Israeli and some pro-Israel resentment in recent years at pressure by the Bush administration to stifle such negotiations. "Hopefully as friends they will listen to us."

That Williamson was endorsing such views at all signified how closely the McCain campaign has allied itself with neo-conservatives. A veteran of the Reagan and first Bush administrations, Williamson in other circumstances would be more closely identified with Republican "realists" who have vociferously eschewed the grand claims of neo-conservatives to a new American empire.

Yet here he was echoing their talking points on several fronts.

McCain until the last year or so has kept feet in both the realist and neo-conservative camps. The session at Lansdowne appeared to suggest that the Republican presidential nominee has chosen sides, opting for policies backed by the outgoing Bush administration and its neo-conservative foreign policy architects.

Both McCain advisers insisted, however, that their candidate was synthesizing the two camps as a "realistic idealist."

McCain would be a "leader who will press for more liberal democratic change " and "is realistic about the prospects of diplomacy and just as importantly its limits," said Boot, echoing what has become the twin walking and talking points of neo-conservatism: a muscular foreign policy and an affinity for promoting democracy.

Surrogates for Obama, an Illinois senator, re-emphasized their commitment to stepping up U.S. diplomatic efforts. Danzig said an Obama administration would revive the idea of a special envoy for pursuing a peace deal.

The "appropriate level of presidential engagement requires that the United States designate someone whose energies are predominantly allocated to this," Danzig said.

Someone like Tony Blair, the former British prime minister now leading efforts to build a Palestinian civil society, might fit the bill, he added.

Surrogates from both campaigns appeared to agree on the need to further isolate Iran until it stands down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Each side emphasized that it would keep the military option on the table and enhance sanctions.

It was clear that each campaign had devoted a great deal of attention to the issue. Officials from both campaigns signed on to a Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy paper this summer that called for closer U.S.-Israel coordination on Iran, borne out of concerns that Israel's leadership was getting closer to contemplating the option of a strike.

Williamson and Richard Clarke, the former top anti-terrorism official in both the Clinton and current Bush administrations who spoke for Obama, described the near impossibility of taking out a weapons program that is believed to be diffuse and hidden in population centers. Clarke added the possibility of covert action against Iran, without details -- a first for either campaign.

The sole difference was over Obama's pledge not to count out a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president who has denied the Holocaust and rejected the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

"What could such a meeting possibly accomplish?" Boot challenged.

Danzig replied that it would make it easier for Obama to rally worldwide support for sanctions.

"These things require a community of nations," he said.

Danzig cast Obama's emphasis on sanctions and diplomacy in terms of Israel's security, a pitch tuned to the Washington Institute's pro-Israel orientation.

"The threats and dangers are more substantial than they were eight years ago," he said.

McCain’s advisers attempted to deflect comparisons between McCain and Bush. In trying to turn such comparisons against the Obama campaign, Boot noted that eight years ago he favored "another presidential candidate with not much experience in national security policy” -- George W. Bush -- “and we've seen the implications."

The Washington Institute crowd, hawkish in its predilections and likelier to favor McCain's foreign policy, would nonetheless only allow the McCain surrogates to take the character and experience issue so far.

Fred Lafer, the institute's president emeritus, pressed Boot on why McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a foreign policy novice, as his running mate if he was committed to national security.

Boot said "she has as much" foreign policy experience as Obama, prompting cries of "No!" and "what?”

1 comment:

I genuinely hope that Livni's initiative (and bid for office) fail. This statement, "We live in a neighbourhood in which sometimes dialogue -- in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and you then shift to dialogue -- is liable to be interpreted as weakness" makes it even more apparent that Livni hasn't a clue about how to deal with her "neighbors."

Nor am I pleased by Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff (though am comforted by the fact that neither Bush Chief of Staff has been given much attention over the past 8 years).

The Lebanese Chessboard

Some thought was put behind the name of this blog.The title, Lebanese Chess, directly refers to the role Lebanon was born to play ... that of a chessboard in the Middle East. Throughout its short 60 year existence, this tiny mountainous entity has swung back and forth between foreign powers. The chess game of Lebanon still continues today, and I'm beginning to think it shall always remain the case. People tend to ask, what is Lebanon's purpose? Well there you have it ... a political chessboard.